|
I hope Ted Cruz runs. He's such a poo poo, and will do exactly what fade5 said. Problem for him is, this time there will be quite a few sharp candidates in the running, and they will tear him apart when he starts biting their ankles. I'm personally all over the place as to who I want to support/win the primary. Whether I settle on him or someone new, I hope Romney runs again.
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 10:20 |
|
|
On the Democrats' side, what about Jim Webb??? I've heard minor rumblings in the past that he could be a potential candidate. Honest to God Truth, I would heavily consider actually voting (D) for President if he was the candidate.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
Aside from Nixon, Reagan was a candidate multiple times. He never lost as the nominee, but I don't see what the big difference is in losing your 2nd run for the Presidency in the primary vs. in the general election. If anything, I would think Romney is more attractive. He made a lot of blunders on the campaign trail, and his G.O.V. operation imploded in hilarious fashion on election day. Despite that, he ran pretty well against THE political superstar of my generation at least. I wasn't around for Kennedy, so I can only go back a few decades, but Obama is without question the most charismatic Democratic candidate I've seen in my lifetime. Bill Clinton was good, but not on Obama's level in my opinion (although after the campaigns ended, he was infinitely more competent and a better POTUS). I personally would prefer Romney over Bush, however Bush is probably a better candidate. He occupies much of the same space as Romney, and the man can garner Latino votes. It will be interesting to see how he'd fare nationally with the Latino population vs. Florida where he was getting a lot of Cuban support. I really don't think his name will hurt him. Having lived in Florida from before he ran for governor through after he was out of office, he's really not at all like his brother other than obviously being a Bush and a Republican. I'm afraid if he declares, Romney won't.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
Haven't checked in in a while. Am I wrong for thinking Romney 2016 should be a done deal? I mean, he wanted to be President bad enough to go through the 2008 and 2012 campaigns, and now he's sitting at the top of a bunch of GOP primary polls AND polls at or near the top of the list in potential general match-up vs. Clinton. Seems to me it would be crazy not to take another shot with strong starting position like that. I lived in Florida for Jeb's entire tenure as Gov. and liked him well enough. He might even be a better general candidate in some ways than Romney. But I really like Romney and would prefer him at this point. Is he just doing an "aw shucks, I don't know" routine to make himself look better?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:She's very unpopular in South Carolina, and got reelected because Democrats are unelectable at the state level there, from what I can tell. As a SC native temporarily marooned in Virginia but FINALLY moving back to Carolina this summer, this is accurate. The woman is an incompetent rear end, but a Republican incompetent rear end, which is far less odious than any Democrat winning the office. ================================================================================== Re: Potential Romney VP candidates - a Romney-Bush ticket would great from a Republican's Viewpoint. I could see it happening. Unfortunately, I don't think the opposite - a Bush-Romney ticket, would have a chance in hell of happening. And I think Bush will probably be the nominee. He'd certainly be a much stronger general election candidate than Romney, but at this point I'd prefer Romney. If he can't beat Hillary, I don't think the conditions in the country will be conducive to Bush winning either.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
(1) drat. Clinton was prime-time ready even then. Why the hell didn't the Democrats run Clinton in the 80s??? Those laughable clowns Mondale and Dukakis over this guy??? (2) Just about any one of the Democrats who spoke would be completely electable in my part of the country today. If I didn't already know who all of them were, and if they weren't clearly in the 80s, I could guess they were a bunch of establishment Republicans, or as we are affectionately known now, RINOs. If Democrats don't like the sea of red across the south and midwest, or GOP House majorities near historically high levels, MAYBE they should try running normal people like that instead of insane leftists who have nothing more to offer than TAXES TAXES TAXES and shrill harpies screaming about our scary guns and the need to ban them. I'm temporarily in Virginia, and while the Democratic party in this state DOES actually run normal human beings for the 2 senate seats (which, SUPRISE, they actually win doing so) they run complete nutters for the house. The congressman in this district has been in the house for over 2 decades now. Maybe they could try running a sane person against him instead of just forfeiting the seat with some new fruit-loop hippie every 2 years?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 14:50
|
|
|
HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:We're going full crazy. Kill Me.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
I know it's early and the MAINSTREAM MEDIA needs something inconsequential/stupid to bark about and make hay out of, but I can't help getting giddy over the idea that Democrats would be dumb enough to run away from Clinton, and toward a dumb-rear end like O'malley no less. After 2008 and 2012, it would be nice to be the one doing the hysterical laughing instead of nervous laughing during the primaries.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
Hello friends!!! Checking back in since we're starting to get in the swing of things. Donald Trump is literally my #1 choice for the 2016 South Carolina GOP Presidential Primary Vote by default right now by virtue of not being as worthless as or as much of a piece of poo poo as any of his officially declared opponents. I am a tad worried that his "gently caress YOU, MEXICANS" campaign strategy may not improve upon Mitt Romney's performance with Latino voters enough to avoid another general election loss. Can anyone tell me in what states assisted suicide is now legal? TIA.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Oh hey I've actually been wondering what your opinion of Bernie is since he's somewhat pro-gun. Obviously I probably disagree with Sanders WAAAAY more than with Hillary Clinton seeing as he's really far to the left, yet I would be the least upset if he was the person the GOP lost to since he is a genuine and honest person and not a horrible and corrupt human being like Hillary Clinton or a complete and utter moron like Martin O'Malley. As for his gun views being better though, does not matter to me because a POTUS Bernie Sanders would still nominate leftist SCOTUS Justices and Heller and McDonald were shamefully only 5-4 instead of 9-0 in favor of our second amendment rights. President only matters re: 2nd amendment to me in that the President gets to pick the people who REALLY matter re: 2nd amendment - the justices. I disagree with him on just about everything but on a personal level I like him and I wouldn't be sick for too long if he was the winner next Nov. But let's get real, Wall Street wants Hillary Clinton to be President.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
LOL. I believe Donald Trump is an egomaniac and an rear end-hole but this is just a transparent media hit-job using decades old divorce b.s. Every single divorced man in America has had the pleasure of having absurd lies thrown at them, lies that are mysteriously retracted once the angry divorcee gets a huge chunk their ex's assets and future earnings. I can easily see a good bump from this. Lends 100% credibility to all his bemoaning of the media being liars and frauds.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
"[O]n one occasion during 1989, Mr. Trump and I had marital relations . . . . [T]he love and tenderness, which he normally exhibited towards me, was absent. I referred to this as a ‘rape,’ but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense." LOL
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2015 02:40
|
|
|
Joementum posted:So you're saying Trump has a way to shut that whole thing down? Hahahahaha. Well played.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Why are you defending the man destroying your beloved party? Because it deserves to be burned to the ground. Obviously I do NOT share the prevailing view among the left that it's destruction = losing the general election and Hillary winning. Also I obviously think the Democratic party needs to be destroyed even more. I think people who think he only plays to the GOP and won't be able to shake things up within a general electorate are sorely mistaken. IF he actually ended up being capable of winning the primary, I think he'd be capable of winning the general as well. Obviously neither is very likely though. And honestly there's the spectacle of it all. Like that Onion article - I really do want to see how far he can go, and if he can actually take down titans like Bush and Clinton. Those people are corrupt scum and Donald Trump is literally a better human being. It's easy to forgive him for being despicable if he's using his powers to poo poo all over people who are even more despicable.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
Dahn posted:Well it's over. My prediction continues to be proven. By the time the first votes are actually cast, every rear end-hole in the world will be against Trump, making him highly appealing. We can just add the Kochs to the list today along with Clinton, Preibus, Rove, El Chapo, etc., etc., etc.......
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
Patiently waiting for CNN, MSNBC, NYT, etc Bobbleheads to crucify Bernie as a RAYYYYYYYSSSSSIIISSSSTTTTTT for his 100% correct take on the border and the abject stupidity of flooding a labor market already characterized by an unprecedented surplus of labor over demand for labor with millions of new unskilled laborers. In the long run immigration is vital for us due to falling birth rates. In the short run, when supply of labor outstrips demand, you slow the flow. It absolutely does matter WHEN immigrants come to this country in large numbers, because if they do so during trash economic times like now, you create a large permanent underclass of unemployed and unemployable people, and for those who do eventually rejoin the employment ranks, they will NEVER make up for their lost years. My only criticism would be Bernie's failure to take it all the way and speak the real truth - the Democratic Party, and Hillary Clinton, are 100% on board with this policy and every bit as much in the pocket of business as the GOP establishment. Calling it a "right-wing" policy is false. Come on Bernie, take a lesson from Trump - if you want to go all the way and smash Hillary in the polls like Trump is smashing Bush, throw political correctness and decorum out the window and just speak the truth.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2015 13:49
|
|
|
So Bush gave an interview in Spanish for Telemundo and apparently actually had the balls to clearly state his border/illegal immigrant stance for the Latino audience, which I agree with, sans fine. English proficiency and no benefits for illegal entrants to gain legal status is good enough for me. Maybe I should pump the brakes on diving down into the Trump rabbit hole. Or maybe I should credit him with influencing others to be blunt and pull no punches. "'To arrive here legally has to be easier than to arrive here illegally,' said Bush. Like other Republicans, he wants to see U.S. borders secured BEFORE allowing the country's estimated 11 million immigrants in the U.S. illegally to obtain legal status. 'I know we can do it,' he said. Bush said immigrants in the country illegally would have to pay 'a small fine' and learn English to remain in the country as legal residents, and would not be eligible for government benefits." http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150801/us-gop-2016-bush-telemundo-0745177e08.html
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2015 14:17
|
|
|
Joementum posted:WSJ/NBC poll: I will never forgive GOP primary poll participants if they let that Lehman Brothers rear end-hole into the adult table debate and deny me the spectacle of Rick Perry stumbling and bumbling his way into a fight with Trump. Someone needs to start pumping the airways TODAY with simple ads about the 2008 crash, Lehman Brothers, and "Managing Director John Kasich." The crash was so toxic it gave us a completely unqualified clown for a President. Take this Wall-Street slime down before he gets enough traction to start getting big donations from his buddies. Chris Christie fucked around with this message at 14:31 on Aug 2, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2015 14:28
|
|
|
William Bear posted:
I don't care. It's a plus for me. Despite being painted as extreme, he's one of the more centrist candidates running. He's being vague because he doesn't ascribe to the Ron Paul "LET THEM DIE" school of thought on healthcare for the indigent, which still has decent traction in the GOP base.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
Also it's cool that Biden obviously knows his automobiles as evidenced by his superior taste, driving the world's greatest sports car, made right here in America, and not some faggy German or Japanese import. Or overrated Italian sports car like Ferrari, whose factory team got bitch-slapped in GTS racing by the GM factory C5R program.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
William Bear posted:Thanks for offering the Republican perspective in this thread. It's appreciated. What I want to hear doesn't matter since I'll never hear it, but my personal preference would be: 1. Eliminate Medicaid and simply use ONE program - Medicare. 2. Open up Medicare as a choice to non-retirees on an income-based pricing model, similar to the current federal student loan repayment plans (i.e. what you pay = some % of your income above the poverty line). This takes care of those medicaid patients, as anyone whose income was at or below poverty line would have a $0 payment for medicare. 3. Require Medicare to run in the black, with the income-based formula being adjusted as often as every single year if necessary based on the prior years' expenses and funding (i.e. prevent private insurance from being destroyed via Medicare being artificially underpriced via running massive deficits). Write the law so that this provision is not severable, i.e. Democrats would never be able to destroy the private insurance industry by waiting until they once again hold the presidency and both houses at the same time, and then altering the law to allow the program to run in the red and severely undercharge payings customers. Also cap Medicare payroll taxes at the current rate, so shortfalls MUST be addressed with the pricing formula for non-retirees. Also, means test retirees and have wealthy ones also pay for their medicare. 4. Also include an unseverable provision providing complete choice for providers as well - keep it perfectly legal to operate private practices/hospitals that only accept private payers. And keep it perfectly legal for private payers to negotiate preferential treatment with providers that do accept public patients for the premium prices they pay. i.e. prevent Democrats from forcing everyone to participate equally in mediocrity.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe Congress can handicap itself this way without a constitutional amendment. Severability is used in legislation to guide how the courts break up a law that is found unconstitutional. It can't be used to bind a future Congress to be unable to enact whatever laws they like. They wouldn't be handicapping themselves. A future congress could always vote to repeal the entire thing, and vote to institute a new system, which was almost identical, except allowing the program to run in the red. I know for sure that they could not include a provision saying a/the law cannot be repealed. BUT you could be right. I have no idea as to the constitutionality of congress making a part of a law inseverable. Not my area of expertise, I stuck to tax law and securities law courses. Basic con law required courses don't cover jack-****.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
The Koch brothers have spent a total of around $27 Million on GOP candidates, PACs, etc., or about 12% of what the SEIU has spent on Democrats. In fact, the Top 4 GOP donors (#7 Las Vegas Sand, #14 Perry Homes, #17 Contran Corp., and #24 Adelson Drug Clinic) COMBINED have not spent as much as the SEIU on candidates, parties, PACs, and 527s. https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?cycle=ALL It's funny how the left makes a huge deal out of this when they are by far and away the massive leader in bought-and-paid for politicians and backing from big money interests. The Koch's are scrub-tier players when it comes to buying politicians and elections.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
AhhYes posted:I agree that there is no difference between two individuals and a union of more than a million workers. Good point. #2, ACT Blue, has spent almost as much combined on Democrats as the top 4 GOP donors. #5, Fahr LLC, has spent 3x the amount on Democrats as the Koch's have on the GOP. It's not just labor unions. In the 2014 election, ACT Blue and Fahr spent almost $150 Million. The Koch's spent $10 Million. Bloomberg spent $28 Million, 95% to Dems. DOUBLE what the TOP GOP spender, Elliott Management (#10 overall in 2014) spent on the GOP. Chris Christie fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Aug 3, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
I would be remiss if I din't give the 4 liberal SCOTUS justices props for being on the right side of an issue for once, it's the GOP appointees' fault that this garbage is continuing to infect our politics. I hope Trump takes his criticism all the way and comes out in support of a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:
30-40% of Union members vote for the GOP, depending on election cycle, candidate, etc. They're all being robbed blind by their unions that give a hell of a lot more than 60-70% of their total donations to Democratic candidates and PACs gently caress You And Diebold posted:That list doesn't include any spending by 501(c) organizations Which Democrats use just like Republicans. Also they have had an advantage here since the current administration is (a) Democratic, and (b) populated with thugs who enjoy using the IRS as a partisan political tool to target GOP-leaning 501(c)s. Chris Christie fucked around with this message at 17:06 on Aug 3, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
And we haven't even talked about the Democratic Party's standard-bearer, the most cool, hip, and popular Democrat since Kennedy, the Democrat who got a greater % of the vote than any Democrat POTUS candidate in nearly half a century - Barack Hussein Obama. No President has ever done more for Wall-Street or at greater expense to "Main Street." Wall-Street and Big Business should all be saying prayers of thanks every night to Saint Obama. Business is booming while Main Street is being destroyed. Hell, the u3 unemployment rate has literally been rendered meaningless as a measure, thanks to a historically unprecedented and sustained decline in labor force participation, ESPECIALLY among the working-aged population. The economy as a whole is experiencing the weakest recovery since the Great Depression, and of that poo poo "recovery" Main Street is getting nothing but table scraps and the privilege of sniffing Wall-Streets' post-dinner farts. They're making a KILLING while everyone else is suffering. And their prayers continue to be answered. Think it can't get any worse for the American laborer/any better for big business interests? Guess again, Saint Obama and his Democratic Party are here to flood the labor market with even more cheap foreign labor, flood the tech market with even more cheap H1B labor, and rape and pillage the working class with even more garbage trade deals. After all, who cares if American plebes get boned, more money for Democrats, and new voters immigrating to replace any hosed over Americans who finally get fed up with being screwed. And we haven't even talked about the lords of the health insurance industry. Obama and the Democrat passed a decades old, hair-brained, Heritage Foundation knee-jerk reaction to Hillary Care as his "new plan" for healthcare. PPACA. Protecting insurance corps.' regional monopolies, forcing everyone to become a customer, mandating by law more coverage items i.e. higher charges even if some individuals don't need them, etc. Oh, but PPACA sticks it to them too. Sure it does, everybody look over here at this requirement that all but 15% of premiums be spent on care, and don't look over there at the fact that that is about 3 TIMES industry average profit margins. Oh yeah, we're looking out for you. The insurance corps., whose lobbyists wrote this law for our dumb-asses, are real mad about it. Honest.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
MrBims posted:Let me tell you about :bernget: I certainly support him for the Democratic nomination. I'd hate for the Democrat to win, but if it happens, better Sanders than someone like Clinton, Biden, or (LOL) O'Malley.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:Well in terms of Republican and Democratic policies helping/hurting the working class I say we look at two places they have actually played out. Minnesota vs Wisconsin. And after a quick glance we can safely begin burning the Republican party to the ground Query, when exactly did Scott Walker take over for the prior, Democratic governor of Wisconsin? When exactly did the GOP take over Wisconsin??? I don't live there, but Google search tells me that Walker took the top job and the GOP took majorities in both chambers of the legislature in January of 2011. [IMG]  [/IMG]  It's looks to me like the decline in unemployment and the increase in GDP and wages for both states basically mirrors one another since 2011. And in a state (Wisconsin) that is less diversified industrially and more heavily dependent on manufacturing, and with an economic hub (Milwaukee) that isn't as large or prosperous as the Twin Cities. Walker and the GOP inherited a Wisconsin in 2011 that was also less healthy than Minnesota (which impacts public spending) and less educated (which impacts employment, income, etc.). Yet it seems to this outsider that despite these disadvantages, changes in employment, wages, and state GDP basically mirror one another between the 2 states. Chris Christie fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Aug 3, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
Dahn posted:Trump with a 52% favorable rating. How is this possible. It's not going to stop there. UP, UP AND AWAY. Just signed up at Trump's campaign site with e-mail and physical mail address for electronic and physical campaign updates and materials. Gonna spread the Gospel of Trump here in the Great State of South Carolina, one of the early and most important primaries. Also told them take a public stand on Citizens United, and also try to go after labor votes. Trump is pro-union, and he's been railing against outsourcing of jobs and insourcing of cheap foreign labor, might as well try to rip away white blue-collar voters from the Democrats. Trumpmentum is real. Get on the train while you can boys and girls. CHOO-CHOO!!!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
Karl Sharks posted:What do you think about that? If he keeps that position today, I will vote for someone else.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
Trump in 1st by a mile, AND Dr. Ben Carson in second place AHEAD of the likes of Bush and Walker. Boy am I glad to finally be back in the Great State of South Carolina. Never leaving again.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
Ignite Memories posted:I feel bad for John Kasich. It kind of seems like he is the best person among the whole group, and he hasn't a chance. Donald Trump has the most money and therefore is the best person. HTH.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
Zelder posted:people keep putting his "break point" higher and higher. A week ago he couldn't get more than 20% of the vote. Yep. They also have to keep moving his approval/like-ability ceiling higher as well. After Trump, Bush, and Walker, the next 2 guys are Cruz and Carson with a combined 15% between them in the RCP average. Cruz/Carson supporters aren't going to jump ship for Jeb loving BUSH. Trump will get most of their support if/when they start dropping out, if he hasn't already siphoned it all away. We'll go through the same routine in the general with Trump's ceiling constantly being pushed up. It will go from "LOL the GOP nominated someone we can't lose to" to "well, 45% will be his ceiling" to MSNBC and CNN talking heads being visibly saddened as they call the race for President Elect Donald Trump. Donald Trump is the perfect Newton's 3rd Law candidate in answer to the Obama presidency. Say it with me people. PRESIDENT Trump.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
Not to mention the new voters Trump will pull into the General Election. You think the polls were bad underestimating Obama's margins of victory? HA, what 'till you see how WRONG the likely voter models are for a general election featuring Donald Trump. Obama got plenty of pop-star votes from idiots who never voted before and won't again, but Trump is an ACTUAL pop-culture star. This time the GOP will get in on those sweet, sweet moron votes. Hell, Democrats ALWAYS win the stupid vote and the loser vote - Obama, Kerry, Gore, Clinton - they ALL won the poverty-level income and below vote and the high-school drop-out vote by HUGE margins. The Donald is going to TRUMP their performances and turn the stupid loser vote in favor of the GOP nominee. Millions of mouth-breathing, American Idol/The View/Price is Right-watching retards who have the good sense to sit at home on election day every year will find themselves compelled by an irresisitable urge to put on their cleanest pair of sweat-pants and head on down to their local church/grade school/post-office/wherever their polling place is and vote for that entertaining guy with the hair from The Apprentice.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
When you think about it, it is ultimately you leftists who will be most responsible for PRESIDENT Donald Trump. Your chickens are coming home to roost. Your insistence on going with the "cool" guy. Your constant marrying of D.C. and Hollywood. Your glorification of hype, social media, glamour, and glitz. Your relentless campaign to get more and more of the dregs of society into the habit of voting. On one magical day next November, all the fruits of your labor will come together in one gloriously triumphant evening, as we reach the logical conclusion of your perversion of politics in America. The 45th President of the United States - Donald Mother loving Trump.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
MrWillsauce posted:Chris, please tell me you are either a satirical character poster or are the real Christie. Otherwise I'm gonna cry. My online SA persona is an exaggerated caricature of my real self (this is a comedy forum after all). But as always, the best humor is laden with truth. I am being 100% truthful about supporting Trump AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME though. If the South Carolina primary was today, I'd either vote Trump, or since he would win in a landslide today, vote in the Democratic primary for Bernie to help you guys out.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2015 03:17
|
|
|
Trump was behind the GOP heavyweights too. He'll do the the general electorate what he's doing to the GOP primary electorate. I find your faith in humanity amusing. Just LOL if you don't think MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of your Obama voters are sheep who will happily flock to the new, hip, glamour candidate. They'll eat up his new reality show, Trump 2016. He'll churn out even more additional new voters too. As I said a while back, they'll come for the show, and when it's over, they'll pay with their votes.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
Fox Ironic posted:You are literally the most disgusting person I have ever had the misfortune of being even tangentially exposed to. You are what is wrong with this country. You are the reason we are falling behind in science, education and technology. People like you, with your lovely opinions and judgmental attitudes, voting against the common welfare of the American people. Sociology is clear on the subject; stigmatization of individuals with low socioeconomic status are the largest factor limiting the opportunities of individuals trying to escape poverty. You seem upset. One might even say . . . . Angry. Boy have I got a 2016 Presidential candidate for you. Are you interested in making American Great again?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2015 13:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 10:20 |
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Minor critique, you left out an opportunity to suggest they ride in on fat people scooters. Also that they are loyal Golden Corral patrons.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2015 14:41
|
|